I’ve seen almost every game of his career at Tulane and he has improved every aspect of his game. I still lean towards very good college player but not ready for the next level yet. Being objective, Clark and Evans of Cincy, Shamet and Shaq Morris of Wichita State, Jalen Adams of UCONN and Shake Milton of SMU are all better players in our conference right now. I’m not sure how many of those guys will be first round picks.

NJwave wrote:I’ve seen almost every game of his career at Tulane and he has improved every aspect of his game. I still lean towards very good college player but not ready for the next level yet. Being objective, Clark and Evans of Cincy, Shamet and Shaq Morris of Wichita State, Jalen Adams of UCONN and Shake Milton of SMU are all better players in our conference right now. I’m not sure how many of those guys will be first round picks.

Maybe with another year of seasoning he could be.

Thoughts?

Those guys may be better college basketball players. You don’t get drafted based on college production. He’s a better pro prospect.

It’s a tough question. There are analogies that come to my mind from the brutally competive classical music world where the kid who is an all-state first chair violinist and auditions for the first time at Curtis or Juilliard; and doesn’t make it past the first round of auditions much less secure a spot. The NBA is not in Kansas.

I think Frazier should test the waters and see if he could actually be a late first rounder but what I really think is that he needs to get stronger.

if Frazier is drafted by a team with existing talent that is "maturing" but will give him the chance to sit, get NBA level coaching and develop his game (which is still a bit raw), a team like the San Antonio Spurs, it could work out nicely for him.

that said, if he's either a first or second round draft choice........color him gone.

GreenieBacker wrote:if Frazier is drafted by a team with existing talent that is "maturing" but will give him the chance to sit, get NBA level coaching and develop his game (which is still a bit raw), a team like the San Antonio Spurs, it could work out nicely for him.

that said, if he's either a first or second round draft choice........color him gone.

It's not so much about whether they sit him or not, but more so if he's drafted into a specific role. I think his best chance to do well is if he's asked to defend, fill a lane on the break, and sit in the corner on offense for his first couple years. He has potential to create off the dribble, but that's going to take time.

A team that is settled, is content in using him in those roles that he can fill now (as you noted defense, etc) and is willing to be patient and work with him to develop his other, more raw skills, could very easily take a chance on him. I agree.

selfishly, I want him back next year while he gets another chance to play and develop under Dunleavy. But that's not going to happen.

I compared him earlier this year to a raw "Avery Bradley" whom the Celtics had the luxury of bringing along slowly under Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen. If there's a team that can burn a first round pick on a guy who won't contribute for two years and has the veterans in front of him to help him along, then by all means take him. I think he should stay for another year of college... it could solidify him as a top 15 pick instead of being anywhere from a first rounder to undrafted, depending on the mock draft you believe.

@prestonsports23: Tulane wing Melvin Frazier continues rapid rise on NBA Mock Draft Boards. More than a dozen league scouts were in attendance at Tulane’s final home game Thursday; Frazier moves up to #26 on ESPN top-100 NBA Draft Prospect rankings; #24 to San Antonio Spurs in 2018 Mock Draft.

Tulane Greenbackers

"It's my job to prepare the coaches. It's their job is to prepare the players and the players' job is to play lights out." Willie Fritz

I know squat about basketball (I HATE this time of year in sports). My opinion is based solely on the fact the Frazier did not CARRY the team to much success this season. I would expect an NBA first rounder to do that.

I know that many of you love basketball, but to me the sport has degenerated into ping pong on the court. This is especially true of the NBA; back and forth with most games coming down to who has the ball last.

OK, tear me up. I think if the goal was raised about two feet basketball would again be an interesting sport.

PeteRasche wrote:
Can he tell me what stocks I should buy and how to vote, too? I always take life advice from celebrities and clearly 18-22-year-olds should too.

I'm not a fan of Lebron and I'm not really in agreement with his advice, but this comment seems really unfair. In this context, he's more of a professional in the field than a celebrity. This is the equivalent of an actor/celebrity giving advice on how young actors should pursue their career. Isn't that the precise kind of opinion your comment more or less suggests they should stick to?

One can debate either side of if a celebrity should express opinions on politics/stocks, and regardless of where one sits on that, I think most of us would agree you shouldn't decide your politics/stock options based on the opinion of a celebrity, especially if you are listening just "cause" they are a celebrity. But certainly we can all agree that it's ok for professionals in a field to at least express an opinion about that very field? Isn't that kind of the point of having expertise/experience in that field? Doesn't make that opinion 100% right (or to be followed), but hardly seems worthy of mocking either

“We will expect success in all endeavors and be prepared to assess and hold ourselves accountable when we aren't successful. Tulane is a top 40 academic institution and it should expect nothing less from its athletic department.”--Troy Dannen 11.5.16

PCWave wrote:I know squat about basketball (I HATE this time of year in sports). My opinion is based solely on the fact the Frazier did not CARRY the team to much success this season. I would expect an NBA first rounder to do that.

I know that many of you love basketball, but to me the sport has degenerated into ping pong on the court. This is especially true of the NBA; back and forth with most games coming down to who has the ball last.

OK, tear me up. I think if the goal was raised about two feet basketball would again be an interesting sport.

NJwave wrote: I’ve seen almost every game of his career at Tulane and he has improved every aspect of his game. I still lean towards very good college player but not ready for the next level yet. Being objective, Clark and Evans of Cincy, Shamet and Shaq Morris of Wichita State, Jalen Adams of UCONN and Shake Milton of SMU are all better players in our conference right now. I’m not sure how many of those guys will be first round picks.

Maybe with another year of seasoning he could be .

Thoughts?

I am NOT going along with him being a FIRST round NBA pick. He is an above average to good college player. The NBA wants GREAT college talent.

I think he means he'd prefer it if the winner of games was less arbitrary.

“We will expect success in all endeavors and be prepared to assess and hold ourselves accountable when we aren't successful. Tulane is a top 40 academic institution and it should expect nothing less from its athletic department.”--Troy Dannen 11.5.16

NJwave wrote: I’ve seen almost every game of his career at Tulane and he has improved every aspect of his game. I still lean towards very good college player but not ready for the next level yet. Being objective, Clark and Evans of Cincy, Shamet and Shaq Morris of Wichita State, Jalen Adams of UCONN and Shake Milton of SMU are all better players in our conference right now. I’m not sure how many of those guys will be first round picks.

Maybe with another year of seasoning he could be .

Thoughts?

I am NOT going along with him being a FIRST round NBA pick. He is an above average to good college player. The NBA wants GREAT college talent.

He needs another year of development , period.

The NBA drafts on talent and raw talent, usually. The draft on skill, more than what they do for their team. I'm not saying where he will be drafted if he goes, but they don't draft on stats, as much as ability, projected ability and measureables.

I think he means he'd prefer it if the winner of games was less arbitrary.

I agree. When the score differential is often just 1 or 2 % of the total points scored, it's like the "winner" was just fortunate to be ahead when time ran out.
Personally, I'd raise the basket, make it illegal to shoot from inside an 8' arc, and have three shooting arcs--one for 1 point (8' out), another for 2 points, and another one for 3 points. Make it a shooting game, because dribbling is not really enforced much any more,

But that's just me...I'm not a big fan of basketball, so I have no compunctions about making it a completely different game.

it's like the "winner" was just fortunate to be ahead when time ran out

you mean like in baseball where whoever happens to be ahead at the end of nine inniings is the winner, or in football at the end of the Fourth Quarter? Seriously some of these arguments are a little odd, to say the least.

PCWave, while I completely understand enjoying and liking one sport more than another to think College Basketball lacks strategy or drama is simply wrong. Like in many sports its about creating the mismatch, getting the other team to play your game and putting the game in the hands of your best player(s).

GreenieBacker wrote:it's like the "winner" was just fortunate to be ahead when time ran out

you mean like in baseball where whoever happens to be ahead at the end of nine inniings is the winner, or in football at the end of the Fourth Quarter? Seriously some of these arguments are a little odd, to say the least.
.

Actually in baseball there is no clock to run out. Each team can score so long as they can manage to not make 27 outs. Its completely even and fair and not arbitrary. It's what's beautiful about baseball.

Are you trying to tell me you DON'T think its at least mostly arbitrary when one team wins at the buzzer? Or Tulane beats ULL because of them not making a 2 point conversion in triple overtime that the rules FORCE them to take?

“We will expect success in all endeavors and be prepared to assess and hold ourselves accountable when we aren't successful. Tulane is a top 40 academic institution and it should expect nothing less from its athletic department.”--Troy Dannen 11.5.16

So in football a team that wins on a Hail Mary even though they might have been behind the whole games as the clock runs out is different how exactly. Point is every sport has a set time for the contest, with often, different team being ahead or behind during the course of the game. But in each and every one its the team that's ahead when the game ends that's the winner.

I can't believe I'm even having this argument, but I knew I could count on you prof.

GreenieBacker wrote:it's like the "winner" was just fortunate to be ahead when time ran out

you mean like in baseball where whoever happens to be ahead at the end of nine inniings is the winner, or in football at the end of the Fourth Quarter? Seriously some of these arguments are a little odd, to say the least.
.

Actually in baseball there is no clock to run out. Each team can score so long as they can manage to not make 27 outs. Its completely even and fair and not arbitrary. It's what's beautiful about baseball.

Are you trying to tell me you DON'T think its at least mostly arbitrary when one team wins at the buzzer? Or Tulane beats ULL because of them not making a 2 point conversion in triple overtime that the rules FORCE them to take?